Political Crossfire Forums

[eynon]

Rozzlapeed wrote: God doesn't keep people from entering heaven, because it isn't a place. Nor is hell. They are both states of being. Heaven is being in the presence of God, and hell is the opposite. The state of your soul after death is the same as it was during your life. You either choose to be with God, or choose to reject God, but God is always calling.

There, isn't that beautiful?

quite nice, thank-you :-D

[curisz]

I've come to the conclusion that it is really up to us. God neither chooses nor judges us.

If you can open yourself up to your fellow man. If you can "Love your neighbor as yourself", in other words if you can get far enough from a self centered view to see the world from anothers perspective and understand yourself as part of something bigger than yourself, then odds are when you die you will be able to release your grip on your self and on the material world, and merge with the absolute ground of being from whence all things came, no matter what religion you might be.

If you can't then maybe you are stuck here lingering. You become a ghost. Trapped here on earth but unable to affect anything. That would be pretty hellish. And then maybe there are people whose bond to one particular person is so strong that they can't bare to let go until they know that other is safe, just like a movie cliche. I dunno. But thats pretty much how I think heaven works.

[cap'n queasy]

BOggThe1rst wrote: The Sumerian Epic of Creation, the oldest historical stone tablets of humanity state that the word God means Leader, Chief, Boss, etc...
And the word Human means "primitive worker".

Those aren't the oldest stone tablets, by a long shot. They only date to 1200 BC.

[toddytodd]

CursedLemon wrote: Does God send nonbelievers to hell or is unwilling to allow them into heaven...OR, is it that he is unable to take them into heaven, for whatever reason?

Not sure if anyone knows the answer quite frankly - there are many different possibilities. Even within Christian circles, there are disagreements. And if they can't agree on it...well...who knows for sure?
Personally, I don't accept the idea that God would reject people from Heaven simply because they never heard of him. That doesn't seem like any god I was ever told of, read about or experienced.

[Enoch]

toddytodd wrote: Not sure if anyone knows the answer quite frankly - there are many different possibilities. Even within Christian circles, there are disagreements. And if they can't agree on it...well...who knows for sure?

This, to me, is the prime problem with organized religions. The prime religions of Christianity (and all its sects), Judiasm (though, admittadly, I'm not much of an expert of Jewish tradition), and Islam all state that THEY are the way in to heaven, and that THEY have the correct interpretation of the divine. Each refers to its canon for proof of the claims they make.

However, to those outside the faith in question, the claims are usually met with skepticism and disbelief, if not downright mockery by some.

The fact is, and some religions recognize this, no one on Earth KNOWS what truly awaits us when we die. People can claim to, through "being touched by the holy spirit" to mandate from the Torrah or the Koran. However, all of these claims of absolute knowledge are false. To claim otherwise is either to be intentionally dishonest, or blind to reality.

All we have, as imperfect humans, is a belief in the nature of the universe, the divine, and our souls. And, unlike some I have seen on this board, only having a belief is fine with me. I would never presume to claim that I know for certain what is out there, and I would hope others (here and elsewhere) would realize that they can't claim to know either.

[BOggThe1rst]

cap'n queasy wrote: BOggThe1rst wrote: The Sumerian Epic of Creation, the oldest historical stone tablets of humanity state that the word God means Leader, Chief, Boss, etc...
And the word Human means "primitive worker".

Those aren't the oldest stone tablets, by a long shot. They only date to 1200 BC.

You are mistaken;

The oldest known copies of these Sumerian versions were written down as royal court entertainment c. 2100 in the reign of the Third dynasty of Ur and King Shulgi. This was during a "Sumerian renaissance" following the Old Akkadian Empire and occurred long after the invention of writing in cuneiform (the first Sumerian writing dates to c. 3000 BCE, the first recorded literature c. 2600 BCE). Many copies in Sumerian were created later in the Old Babylonian kingdom c. 1800 by Babylonian scribes at Ur and Nippur. Copying Gilgamesh in Sumerian in fact was a common scribal exercise in Old Babylonia (e.g., in the reign of King Hammurapi). A separate poem in Sumerian about Atramhasis, "When the gods were man", once mistakenly thought to be part of Gilgamesh, provides the basis for the Deluge tale incorporated into the Babylonian version of Gilgamesh. Compared to Akkadian, Sumerian was an older and linguistically unrelated language which was spoken in southern Mesopotamia. It arose by 3100 BCE and had its classical period from 2600 - 2300 BCE. Old Akkadian (which flourished c. 2800-2500 BCE) coexisted with Classical Sumerian. Sumerian had predominated in the urban south, whereas Akkadian initially predominated in the north. But by 1800 BCE, Sumerian had died out as a spoken language, though it retained prestige as a written literary language of learning (similar to the later literary roles of Greek and Latin).

Old Babylonian version: The fragmentary version of Gilgamesh in Old Babylonian (a dialect of Akkadian) beginning "Surpassing all other kings" dates to c. 1700 and shows there was already an integrated epic by then. Akkadian (i.e., Babylonian-Assyrian) is a family of Semitic dialects initially favored in the more provincial north of Mesopotamia, but eventually becoming the lingua franca of all of Mesopotamia. Dialects of Akkadian included Old Akkadian 2500 - 1950 BCE; Old Babylonian 1950 - 1530 BCE; Old Assyrian 1950 - 1750 BCE; Middle Babylonian 1530 - 1000 BCE; Middle Assyrian 1500 - 1000 BCE; New Babylonian 1000 - 625 BCE; New Assyrian 1000 - 600 BCE; and Late Babylonian 625 BCE to 0 (data taken from John Heise's Akkadian language).

Standard version: The standard version of Gilgamesh in Babylonia and Assyria is called "He who saw the Deep", and was compiled and given its final form by Sin-liqe-uninni c. 1200 BCE. It is written in a dialect of Akkadian termed Middle Babylonian (also called Standard Babylonian). It is a damaged masterpiece full of holes and missing parts and uncertain words and phrases. The author (George) fills in some of the missing text from other copies from various earlier times and even from other languages (e.g., a Hittite version). There are 11 "tablets" in the "Series of Gilgamesh" totaling originally c. 3000 lines. What was once thought to be tablet 12 is actually a line-by-line translation into Akkadian of the last 1/2 of the Sumerian-language Bilgames poem "Bilgames and the Netherworld."

[perdidochas]

CursedLemon wrote: Does God send nonbelievers to hell or is unwilling to allow them into heaven...OR, is it that he is unable to take them into heaven, for whatever reason?

He respects their decision to reject Him, and He lets them go to Hell, which has an absence of God's presence. Hell is not God's choice, it's the person's choice.

[milk carton]

how bout this theres no heaven or hell just oblivion.

[greeneye]

CursedLemon wrote: Does God send nonbelievers to hell ....?

They just have a longer learning curve.

[eynon]

milk carton wrote: how bout this theres no heaven or hell just oblivion.

even if such was my fate, it doesn't change my faith.........

[Comrade Kerr]

As I see it, if god is petty and vindictive enough to send me to hell for refusing to love him then I'd rather choose hell than suffer an eternity with such a repulsive being.

[ikari]

CursedLemon wrote: Does God send nonbelievers to hell or is unwilling to allow them into heaven...OR, is it that he is unable to take them into heaven, for whatever reason?

My adviser is a devout Catholic, studies the bible, went to Catholic school (even Notre Dame), etc. He says the official Catholic position is that they can't say there is anyone in hell. His point is that Jesus died for everyone, especially the sinners; if there were no sinners there would have been no reason to send Jesus to earth to save us.

I still don't believe in any sort of deity, but the Catholics seem to be pretty down to earth in their interpretation of the Bible and the teachings of their church.

[mODULAR mAN]

The funny thing is that most Xians must accept this:

If God sends unbelievers to Heaven, then the best thing you can do is kill children.

Considering the possibilty of being swayed from the path of following Jesus (it is very difficult, donchya know), and the fact that Hell is eternal, and horrible, the best thing a Xian can do is kill babies, since God can't blame the victim and he'll have to take them "up in His arms".

Meanwhil, all the killer has to do is beg forgiveness. Since acceptance of Jesus is the important thing, it's obvious they believe (otherwise why kill children), and they can ask forgiveness (and Jesus will give it, since he is All-forgiving).


Kinda sick religion if you ask me.

That's why it's only good if God sends unbelievers to Hell. Sure, it makes God Unjust and a bastard, but at least it doesn't encourage killing children.

[ikari]

Xians mean Christians?

[mODULAR mAN]

ikari wrote: Xians mean Christians?

Yeppers. Much shorter. Like "Xmas".

Quote: An alternative spelling of Christian, by analogy with Xmas as an alternative spelling of Christmas. "X" resembles the Greek letter Χ (Chi), the first letter of "Christ" in Greek Χριστός [Christos].
wikipedia

[John]

ikari wrote: Xians mean Christians?

Because Christ is so dificult to write.

I think it actually is for some people.

[mODULAR mAN]

John wrote: ikari wrote: Xians mean Christians?

Because Christ is so dificult to write.

I think it actually is for some people.


Nice attempt at a dig. (Should I show the IQ results for religious people vs. non-religious?)

Yes, it seemed to be difficult for these people:



God forbid they write his name and instead of using symbology!

What's with you guys? The sign of the Cross is a symbol of Christ.

I could call you Zombie Lover's or something more insulting. :wink:

[cap'n queasy]

BOggThe1rst wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: BOggThe1rst wrote: The Sumerian Epic of Creation, the oldest historical stone tablets of humanity state that the word God means Leader, Chief, Boss, etc...
And the word Human means "primitive worker".

Those aren't the oldest stone tablets, by a long shot. They only date to 1200 BC.

You are mistaken;

The oldest known copies of these Sumerian versions were written down as royal court entertainment c. 2100 in the reign of the Third dynasty of Ur and King Shulgi. This was during a "Sumerian renaissance" following the Old Akkadian Empire and occurred long after the invention of writing in cuneiform (the first Sumerian writing dates to c. 3000 BCE, the first recorded literature c. 2600 BCE). Many copies in Sumerian were created later in the Old Babylonian kingdom c. 1800 by Babylonian scribes at Ur and Nippur. Copying Gilgamesh in Sumerian in fact was a common scribal exercise in Old Babylonia (e.g., in the reign of King Hammurapi). A separate poem in Sumerian about Atramhasis, "When the gods were man", once mistakenly thought to be part of Gilgamesh, provides the basis for the Deluge tale incorporated into the Babylonian version of Gilgamesh. Compared to Akkadian, Sumerian was an older and linguistically unrelated language which was spoken in southern Mesopotamia. It arose by 3100 BCE and had its classical period from 2600 - 2300 BCE. Old Akkadian (which flourished c. 2800-2500 BCE) coexisted with Classical Sumerian. Sumerian had predominated in the urban south, whereas Akkadian initially predominated in the north. But by 1800 BCE, Sumerian had died out as a spoken language, though it retained prestige as a written literary language of learning (similar to the later literary roles of Greek and Latin).

Old Babylonian version: The fragmentary version of Gilgamesh in Old Babylonian (a dialect of Akkadian) beginning "Surpassing all other kings" dates to c. 1700 and shows there was already an integrated epic by then. Akkadian (i.e., Babylonian-Assyrian) is a family of Semitic dialects initially favored in the more provincial north of Mesopotamia, but eventually becoming the lingua franca of all of Mesopotamia. Dialects of Akkadian included Old Akkadian 2500 - 1950 BCE; Old Babylonian 1950 - 1530 BCE; Old Assyrian 1950 - 1750 BCE; Middle Babylonian 1530 - 1000 BCE; Middle Assyrian 1500 - 1000 BCE; New Babylonian 1000 - 625 BCE; New Assyrian 1000 - 600 BCE; and Late Babylonian 625 BCE to 0 (data taken from John Heise's Akkadian language).

Standard version: The standard version of Gilgamesh in Babylonia and Assyria is called "He who saw the Deep", and was compiled and given its final form by Sin-liqe-uninni c. 1200 BCE. It is written in a dialect of Akkadian termed Middle Babylonian (also called Standard Babylonian). It is a damaged masterpiece full of holes and missing parts and uncertain words and phrases. The author (George) fills in some of the missing text from other copies from various earlier times and even from other languages (e.g., a Hittite version). There are 11 "tablets" in the "Series of Gilgamesh" totaling originally c. 3000 lines. What was once thought to be tablet 12 is actually a line-by-line translation into Akkadian of the last 1/2 of the Sumerian-language Bilgames poem "Bilgames and the Netherworld."

Most of what you have provided is speculation based on linguistics without any verifiable evidence to back it up. But that's what we are dealing with when we explore this time period. It is an extremely complex subject, subject to much contraversy. What we do know is this:

Tablets 1-12 "The epic of Gilgamesh" were produced in 1200 BC and this is the earliest date at which this cycle can be confirmed, although it certainly developed for some time before it was written down. Any reliable archeaology source can confirm that. This was about the same time Troy fell and Homer wrote his epics. Now, where did the tale come from?

Genesis is older, and accurately describes kings, battles, cities and civilizations that were buried in the desert for a thousand years or more by the time the "Gilgamesh" epic was produced in Nineveh. There are plenty of archeaological finds that prove it's accuracy in these respects. This would be impossible unless this writing originated in this extremely early time period, as archeaology is a rather recent innovation. The Genesis account is likely the root source of any Mesopotamian flood legends. It was ancient by the time Moses incorporated it into the Torah.

"He who saw the Deep" is probably the same king in the account of Abraham, (about 2300-2500 BC, who was a Sumerian from the city of Ur BTW), known as Amraphel "Sayer of Darkness" (commonly misidentified as Khammarabi c.17th century) .

The Midrash states that this was the king known as Nimrod (Sargon of Akkad possibly?), who is likely the real person the Gilgamesh legend sprang from. However, information concerning this proto-civilization is lost in mists of antiquity and is difficult to discern, nothing about the period is certain at all. At any rate a legendary treatment of a mythic hero derived from an actual king is hardly older than a writing who identifies the actual person without later mythological trappings.

[John]

mODULAR mAN wrote: John wrote: ikari wrote: Xians mean Christians?

Because Christ is so dificult to write.

I think it actually is for some people.


Nice attempt at a dig. (Should I show the IQ results for religious people vs. non-religious?)

Yes, it seemed to be difficult for these people:



God forbid they write his name and instead of using symbology!

What's with you guys? The sign of the Cross is a symbol of Christ.

I could call you Zombie Lover's or something more insulting. :wink:

Well I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence.

I think it's a spiritual issue. People that have a strong dark spiritual influence on their life have a hard time writing "Christ" and are offending by Jesus Christ in general.

[JDinPhilly]

The writer of this question assumes that there is such a thing as heaven and hell.